Does anyone like Andy Dalton?

[ArmyBengal]

"Scut" Dalton (hat tip to willy) up for Fedex air nod again...

/>http://www.nfl.com/voting/players-air-and-ground/2013/REG/7

Yeah, I like the "Scut" reference as well.

Why do they keep nominating players that suck for these awards ??

Seriously though, that was one heck of a game by Dalton and again on the road.

[COB]

Scut Dalton and I have completely made up. We're meeting at old man Wilkerson's drug store after practice for malteds.

[COB]

Error

[ArmyBengal]

Error

No worries, old age creeps up on all of us.

Maybe I can use that "throw a rock in the river" thing you mentioned about rooting for the Steelers to aid in this problem.

Then again, I think i'll just ride it out. Old age has no effect on awesomeness right ??

Sorry. Back on track. Dalton. Good game.

[HoosierCat]

In the wake of two good showings, it seems like the media hate for Scut is growing more and more shrill. Espn has an In$ider article up claiming that he is the "weak link" holding back the team. I haven't read it, but I find it odd that it's one of their contributions from the football outsiders guys -- and Andy is the No. 10-ranked QB in the league according to their own DVOA ratings.

Then last night I clicked over to nfl.com and came across a video in which the question asked was, which of the top AFC teams is a pretender, not a contender. Two out of three cited the Bengals, because Dalton. Why? Well, they admitted he's doing well now but hand-waved that away and whined that he didn't play well against Houston in the wild card game last year.

Keep it up, Scut, you're making them crazy.

[101Airborne]

Again, this comes down to being able to be rational about Dalton.

You have those fans that simply hate him, and are always going to blast away regardless of what they just watched Sunday.

Then you have others that can acknowledge the fact he had a tremendous game, while still seeing he has things to work on.

Stafford had an equal amount of issues in that game and yet you hear next to none of that.

Anyone watch any of the other games this week ?? Plenty of very good QB's had bad games.

It happens and will continue to happen.

Dalton continues to improve and while I have my concerns with the long ball from time to time, i'm not going to bash away for the sake of it.

I think any rational analysis of Dalton, whether by statistics or even just from eye-balling it reveals that he is a good but not great QB. The real question is, can he continue to improve and will he over come some of his weaknesses? I think a lot of people think he has hit his ceiling and found him wanting and therefore want to write him off. Others think he will get better and better and want to give him time to do that.

Sounds exactly like what they were saying about Flacco and he was winning playoff games.

Take away Flacco's weapons and he's just another QB. How's 3-4 working for him ??

Dalton is going to continue to take the heat he does by the media and I think it's a shame.

A sound bite I heard from the game yesterday ??

"Good thing Dalton bailed out the defense"

D*mn he sucks...

And good God do I have a visceral hate for the argument that, "If you take away Green, Andy sucks!" Well f**k me, it's almost like it takes a whole team to play good football! Who knew? I've done my own fair share of comparing Dalton's and Flacco's situations and they seem to share a similar stigma in the media and with their own fan bases. I think fans and non-fans alike are swayed way too much by what pundits spew. I bet if ESPN was on Andy's nuts and made excuses for him every time he played like ass, you'd hear the same excuses from fans as well, just like you do when Kaepernick or RG3 have a crap-tacular game.

[101Airborne]

In the wake of two good showings, it seems like the media hate for Scut is growing more and more shrill. Espn has an In$ider article up claiming that he is the "weak link" holding back the team. I haven't read it, but I find it odd that it's one of their contributions from the football outsiders guys -- and Andy is the No. 10-ranked QB in the league according to their own DVOA ratings.

Then last night I clicked over to nfl.com and came across a video in which the question asked was, which of the top AFC teams is a pretender, not a contender. Two out of three cited the Bengals, because Dalton. Why? Well, they admitted he's doing well now but hand-waved that away and whined that he didn't play well against Houston in the wild card game last year.

Keep it up, Scut, you're making them crazy. :sure:/>

Things like that are a damned joke. I could understand the "pretender" moniker if, say, we had a 5-2 record with wins against teams like the Jags and our losses coming from the Pats and Green Bay. If you beat up on weaklings and lose to every decent team you play, sure, there should be some concern about your playoff hopes. But as well all know, our beloved team has stepped up and put Brady, Rodgers and Stafford in their place, which makes the whole pretender thing just garbage spewed by guys with nothing better to bash on.

[skyline]

In the wake of two good showings, it seems like the media hate for Scut is growing more and more shrill. Espn has an In$ider article up claiming that he is the "weak link" holding back the team. I haven't read it, but I find it odd that it's one of their contributions from the football outsiders guys -- and Andy is the No. 10-ranked QB in the league according to their own DVOA ratings.

Then last night I clicked over to nfl.com and came across a video in which the question asked was, which of the top AFC teams is a pretender, not a contender. Two out of three cited the Bengals, because Dalton. Why? Well, they admitted he's doing well now but hand-waved that away and whined that he didn't play well against Houston in the wild card game last year.

Keep it up, Scut, you're making them crazy. />

Things like that are a damned joke. I could understand the "pretender" moniker if, say, we had a 5-2 record with wins against teams like the Jags and our losses coming from the Pats and Green Bay. If you beat up on weaklings and lose to every decent team you play, sure, there should be some concern about your playoff hopes. But as well all know, our beloved team has stepped up and put Brady, Rodgers and Stafford in their place, which makes the whole pretender thing just garbage spewed by guys with nothing better to bash on.

I could buy the pretender label due to the fact that we have yet to put together a complete, dominating performance. Basing it on Andy, not so much.

Gotta give LT credit in that clip...he called the Patriots the true pretenders, which I agree with completely. They don't have enough weapons on offense, and their defense is beat up beyond belief.

[101Airborne]

In the wake of two good showings, it seems like the media hate for Scut is growing more and more shrill. Espn has an In$ider article up claiming that he is the "weak link" holding back the team. I haven't read it, but I find it odd that it's one of their contributions from the football outsiders guys -- and Andy is the No. 10-ranked QB in the league according to their own DVOA ratings.

Then last night I clicked over to nfl.com and came across a video in which the question asked was, which of the top AFC teams is a pretender, not a contender. Two out of three cited the Bengals, because Dalton. Why? Well, they admitted he's doing well now but hand-waved that away and whined that he didn't play well against Houston in the wild card game last year.

Keep it up, Scut, you're making them crazy. />

Things like that are a damned joke. I could understand the "pretender" moniker if, say, we had a 5-2 record with wins against teams like the Jags and our losses coming from the Pats and Green Bay. If you beat up on weaklings and lose to every decent team you play, sure, there should be some concern about your playoff hopes. But as well all know, our beloved team has stepped up and put Brady, Rodgers and Stafford in their place, which makes the whole pretender thing just garbage spewed by guys with nothing better to bash on.

I could buy the pretender label due to the fact that we have yet to put together a complete, dominating performance. Basing it on Andy, not so much.

Gotta give LT credit in that clip...he called the Patriots the true pretenders, which I agree with completely. They don't have enough weapons on offense, and their defense is beat up beyond belief.

I'm not so sure that that's a good reason to call them pretenders though. If you can beat other very talented teams, even if you play them close, that is the very definition of a team that can contend. Contending is all about being competitive against the best teams you face, and that's exactly what the Bengals do. Pretenders blow easy teams away and put up padded stats against struggling opponents but turn around and lose to every decent team they face. They might look good stat and even win wise, but have yet to show they can beat anyone with a good level of talent. THat's just how I see the two terms anyway.

EDIT: To back up my point, the Bengals have a 5-2 record against what is so far the best win-loss ratio held by opponents in the NFL right now. We don't just win, we win against quality opponents who are also playoff contenders.

[skyline]

In the wake of two good showings, it seems like the media hate for Scut is growing more and more shrill. Espn has an In$ider article up claiming that he is the "weak link" holding back the team. I haven't read it, but I find it odd that it's one of their contributions from the football outsiders guys -- and Andy is the No. 10-ranked QB in the league according to their own DVOA ratings.

Then last night I clicked over to nfl.com and came across a video in which the question asked was, which of the top AFC teams is a pretender, not a contender. Two out of three cited the Bengals, because Dalton. Why? Well, they admitted he's doing well now but hand-waved that away and whined that he didn't play well against Houston in the wild card game last year.

Keep it up, Scut, you're making them crazy. />

Things like that are a damned joke. I could understand the "pretender" moniker if, say, we had a 5-2 record with wins against teams like the Jags and our losses coming from the Pats and Green Bay. If you beat up on weaklings and lose to every decent team you play, sure, there should be some concern about your playoff hopes. But as well all know, our beloved team has stepped up and put Brady, Rodgers and Stafford in their place, which makes the whole pretender thing just garbage spewed by guys with nothing better to bash on.

I could buy the pretender label due to the fact that we have yet to put together a complete, dominating performance. Basing it on Andy, not so much.

Gotta give LT credit in that clip...he called the Patriots the true pretenders, which I agree with completely. They don't have enough weapons on offense, and their defense is beat up beyond belief.

I'm not so sure that that's a good reason to call them pretenders though. If you can beat other very talented teams, even if you play them close, that is the very definition of a team that can contend. Contending is all about being competitive against the best teams you face, and that's exactly what the Bengals do. Pretenders blow easy teams away and put up padded stats against struggling opponents but turn around and lose to every decent team they face. They might look good stat and even win wise, but have yet to show they can beat anyone with a good level of talent. THat's just how I see the two terms anyway.

EDIT: To back up my point, the Bengals have a 5-2 record against what is so far the best win-loss ratio held by opponents in the NFL right now. We don't just win, we win against quality opponents who are also playoff contenders.

I see where you're coming from, but as we've discussed here, you've got to have the ability to put teams away. We've done well to pull out the win the past two weeks, but when the margin of victory is so close, all it takes is one bad bounce in overtime or late in the 4th quarter and the game is gone.

I'll feel a lot better about things if we can beat the Jets by a more comfortable margin this week.

[101Airborne]

I see where you're coming from, but as we've discussed here, you've got to have the ability to put teams away. We've done well to pull out the win the past two weeks, but when the margin of victory is so close, all it takes is one bad bounce in overtime or late in the 4th quarter and the game is gone.

I'll feel a lot better about things if we can beat the Jets by a more comfortable margin this week.

I'm not saying I don't want us to have games over by halftime, hell I'd love to not be tearing the arms off my chair every week as a long field goal sails awkwardly towards the uprights. I'm just saying that calling the Bengals pretenders is ludicrous when they have a 5-2 record against what is so far the hardest schedule in the league. If we were 5-2 against, say, the Chief's weak-ass schedule, I could maybe see the reasoning.

[skyline]

I see where you're coming from, but as we've discussed here, you've got to have the ability to put teams away. We've done well to pull out the win the past two weeks, but when the margin of victory is so close, all it takes is one bad bounce in overtime or late in the 4th quarter and the game is gone.

I'll feel a lot better about things if we can beat the Jets by a more comfortable margin this week.

I'm not saying I don't want us to have games over by halftime, hell I'd love to not be tearing the arms off my chair every week as a long field goal sails awkwardly towards the uprights. I'm just saying that calling the Bengals pretenders is ludicrous when they have a 5-2 record against what is so far the hardest schedule in the league. If we were 5-2 against, say, the Chief's weak-ass schedule, I could maybe see the reasoning.

Yep, I get it, and I generally agree with you. That's why I would agree with LT, that among the top 5 in the AFC, New England is far and away the obvious choice.

It's not all about the QB, which is something we can certainly agree on.

[HoosierCat]

It's not all about the QB, which is something we can certainly agree on.

Absolutely, and I would say that if you want a comfortable victory for once, it's not Andy but rather the d-line that needs to get its act together.

Just to review, between the franchise tag on MJ and new deals for Atkins and Dunlap, the Bengals poured more than $100 million into the defensive line in the offseason. And right now, they flat-out suck.

CHFF calls their d-line rantings the "defensive hog index." Last year, the Bengals ranked 4th. This year, they are a putrid 27.

FO ranks the Bengals' d-line at 22 versus the run and 20 versus the pass. Moreover, when you break down the run D, you find a combination of bad line yards and good open field yards. Translation: the line is letting guys through and the LBs and secondary are saving their butts with good pursuit and tackling at the second level.

Our D may still rank in the top 10, but that's in spite of the line, not because of it, and considering the resources invested I think that's a huge problem.

[kingwilly]

Poor Scut, never getting the respect he deserves. Damned if he wins, damned if he loses. He's just not a big glamorous arm, does not have a supermodel wife, hasnt been charged ina a rape case...etc. etc. etc.

Just win baby. Gets harder and harder to argue with results.

[Sea Ray]

And good God do I have a visceral hate for the argument that, "If you take away Green, Andy sucks!" Well f**k me, it's almost like it takes a whole team to play good football! Who knew? I've done my own fair share of comparing Dalton's and Flacco's situations and they seem to share a similar stigma in the media and with their own fan bases. I think fans and non-fans alike are swayed way too much by what pundits spew. I bet if ESPN was on Andy's nuts and made excuses for him every time he played like ass, you'd hear the same excuses from fans as well, just like you do when Kaepernick or RG3 have a crap-tacular game.

Actually Andy put up good numbers last year when AJ was out

[kingwilly]

It's not all about the QB, which is something we can certainly agree on.

Absolutely, and I would say that if you want a comfortable victory for once, it's not Andy but rather the d-line that needs to get its act together.

Just to review, between the franchise tag on MJ and new deals for Atkins and Dunlap, the Bengals poured more than $100 million into the defensive line in the offseason. And right now, they flat-out suck.

CHFF calls their d-line rantings the "defensive hog index." Last year, the Bengals ranked 4th. This year, they are a putrid 27.

FO ranks the Bengals' d-line at 22 versus the run and 20 versus the pass. Moreover, when you break down the run D, you find a combination of bad line yards and good open field yards. Translation: the line is letting guys through and the LBs and secondary are saving their butts with good pursuit and tackling at the second level.

Our D may still rank in the top 10, but that's in spite of the line, not because of it, and considering the resources invested I think that's a huge problem.

I think that opponents are scheming better to handle the D line. Atkins is eating double teams on about every play, still has 4 sacks. Dunlap and MJ have not been terrible but not as elite as last year but have 6.5 sacks to date (4 for Dunlap). Gilberry has shined, with 3 sacks so far. Overall, not necessarily atrocious, especially considering the opponent quality, but not the totally dominant front they were last season.

[101Airborne]

I see where you're coming from, but as we've discussed here, you've got to have the ability to put teams away. We've done well to pull out the win the past two weeks, but when the margin of victory is so close, all it takes is one bad bounce in overtime or late in the 4th quarter and the game is gone.

I'll feel a lot better about things if we can beat the Jets by a more comfortable margin this week.

I'm not saying I don't want us to have games over by halftime, hell I'd love to not be tearing the arms off my chair every week as a long field goal sails awkwardly towards the uprights. I'm just saying that calling the Bengals pretenders is ludicrous when they have a 5-2 record against what is so far the hardest schedule in the league. If we were 5-2 against, say, the Chief's weak-ass schedule, I could maybe see the reasoning.

Yep, I get it, and I generally agree with you. That's why I would agree with LT, that among the top 5 in the AFC, New England is far and away the obvious choice.

It's not all about the QB, which is something we can certainly agree on.

Yup, that I am right with you on. And I also agree that of the top AFC teams, the Pats look the most suspect. Andy may not be flashy, but we actually have a complete team this year, barring a few positional inconsistencies. That's what I like to see, talent in every group, which is something a lot of other teams don't have.

[101Airborne]

And good God do I have a visceral hate for the argument that, "If you take away Green, Andy sucks!" Well f**k me, it's almost like it takes a whole team to play good football! Who knew? I've done my own fair share of comparing Dalton's and Flacco's situations and they seem to share a similar stigma in the media and with their own fan bases. I think fans and non-fans alike are swayed way too much by what pundits spew. I bet if ESPN was on Andy's nuts and made excuses for him every time he played like ass, you'd hear the same excuses from fans as well, just like you do when Kaepernick or RG3 have a crap-tacular game.

Actually Andy put up good numbers last year when AJ was out

Oh I know, but the media and even some fans seem convinced that he is straight up garbage. Hell, I was reading a list of rankings for back up QBs and whether the team would be better, the same or worse with the backup over the starter. The article said that anyone can lob the ball in Green's general vicinity 10 times per game, as if that is all Andy ever does. You and I may know better, but the sports "journalists" don't seem to.

[skyline]

Not everyone in the media is down on Dalton:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/cincinnati-bengals/0ap2000000268247/Casserly-Dalton-has-ice-in-his-veins

[HoosierCat]

Overall, not necessarily atrocious, especially considering the opponent quality, but not the totally dominant front they were last season.

I think Geathers has been a very underrated loss. He wasn't a big rushing threat but he was money against the run, and they are struggling there.

[HoosierCat]

Not everyone in the media is down on Dalton:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/cincinnati-bengals/0ap2000000268247/Casserly-Dalton-has-ice-in-his-veins

I love how it's back-to-back with the Dalton sucks video.

[101Airborne]

Not everyone in the media is down on Dalton:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/cincinnati-bengals/0ap2000000268247/Casserly-Dalton-has-ice-in-his-veins

Good to hear that, as it does highlight some of the good things Andy does. Much as a team is not just its QB, a QB is not just his stats on certain throws. I've always maintained that the athletic ability is only 1/3rd of what makes a QB. The other two equally necessary parts are leadership and decision making. Palmer is easily a better athlete than Andy when it comes to purely throwing the ball, but the guy is garbage because his decision making blows and his leadership is so bad that it's detrimental to his whole team. Same with guys like Jamarcus Russel and to a degree Cam Newton.

Not that I think Cam Newton is a garbage QB, but I've seen his decision making straight up lose games for the Panthers leading to him sulking over on the sidelines. This video highlights some of those other areas beyond simply throwing ability that elevates not only Andy's play, but the play of his whole team.

[kingwilly]

Overall, not necessarily atrocious, especially considering the opponent quality, but not the totally dominant front they were last season.

I think Geathers has been a very underrated loss. He wasn't a big rushing threat but he was money against the run, and they are struggling there.

I agree. However, now is time for Still and Thompson to earn their contracts.

[HoosierCat]

As you may have heard, His Lordship turned down a chance to play for the Rams. I recommend the read for those unhappy with Scut.

[essexjohnson]

The defensive line is not the problem. No they are not putting up huge numbers. The league studied the tape of last year. Lots of quick throws. Lots of hits on the opposing QB's. The only criticism I have of Zimmer (who I love} is the double a gap blitz look, How often does it work? The good qb's always find someone over the middle